…despite being an imaginary monologue. Read how Richard Dawkins would explain Santa Claus to the Fair Hills kindergarten class.
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 124.
Recent Posts
- Our illness is their profit
- Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- Dear Jezebel
- There Will Be Blood?
- Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Friday Cephalopod: Feasibility trial successful
- Making excuses
- More bad science in the literature
- An open letter to the Indiana legislature
- One Carnival of Evolution, coming right up
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- Amphiox, OM on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Zaki Aminu on More bad science in the literature
- Zaki Aminu on More bad science in the literature
- Zaki Aminu on More bad science in the literature
- Amphiox, OM on More bad science in the literature
- Zaki Aminu on More bad science in the literature
- Zaki Aminu on More bad science in the literature
- Zaki Aminu on More bad science in the literature
- Zaki Aminu on More bad science in the literature
- Zaki Aminu on More bad science in the literature
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« Genetics of virgin birth in the Komodo dragon | Main | Uh, flying monkeys? No. Really? »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
It does have the ring of truth...
Category: Humor
Posted on: December 21, 2006 5:46 PM, by PZ Myers
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/28825
Leave a comment
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: quork | December 21, 2006 6:01 PM
As I read it, it did not sound like Richard Dawkins' voice. It was fun nonetheless.
Posted by: Kagehi | December 21, 2006 6:57 PM
Given that there is not, as so many people have *tried* to fracking tell you clowns, such a thing as "Darwinism" in modern biology, you might as well be babbling about geocentrism and insisting that modern cosmology is all based on false premises because some clowns centuries ago thought it made sense and some clowns today insisted that all "cosmologist" where geocentrists, because they still used some of the same math as the clueless people that once did think it made sense.
Or is that too complicated of a sentence for you to parse Billy?
Sorry for feeding this new troll, but damn I get tired of this, "Attack the imaginary bullshit my priest tells me scientists believe in, because I everyone around me is too stupid to figure out what they do *reason* makes sense based on evidence, instead of belief."
Posted by: Conway Twitty | December 21, 2006 7:06 PM
Blly Brgg wrt:
""My gl n ll f ths s tht, s chldrn, y shld b rsd nly n trth, rsn, fct, nd ntllct. Tgthr w shld b wrkng twrd pnt n th nt-s-dstnt ftr whr th wrds "Chrls Drwn", nd "rnst Myr" crt th sm rspns s fngrnls n chlkbrd. Thr s nthng wrng wth dsblf n Drwnsm. cn s tht th tpc mks mny f y ncmfrtbl. Hwvr, ths shld nt b vwd s bd thng. Y my wp nw, bt yr trs r pstv, nt ngtv. Y r nw fcng th trth, whch cms n mny frms nd s nt lwys cmfrtbl. Ths s fct tht y wll b xpsd t gn nd gn thrght yr lvs. f y wsh t lv lf tht cntns nly cmfrtbl nfrmtn nd nt ncssrly th trth, thn yrs wll b hghly dldd xstnc. Yr ntllctl mtrty dpnds n whthr r nt y r cpbl f ccptng th trth t ths rly g. Tht s why thr s n bttr plc t bgn thn wth th bsrdty tht s Drwnsm. Nw thn, wth ll tht sd, wsh t thnk y fr yr tm tdy, nd shld lk vry mch t pn p th flr t ny qstns y my hv."
Rlly?
[This is pathetic. Now Charlie Wagner is talking to himself.
At last he's found someone who will listen to him, but he doesn't need to do it here. Get a pair of sockpuppets, Charlie, one for each hand, and sit alone in your house and have a dialog.]
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 21, 2006 7:07 PM
Just to clear up some possible confusion for future viewers, Kagehi is arguing with Charlie Wagner, who is trying to appear here under various aliases ("Billy" and "Conway") and getting obliterated as soon as I spot him.
Posted by: George | December 21, 2006 7:09 PM
I agree, not quite Dawkins-like. It's not nearly acerbic enough. It lacks punch. Should have included a few sychophantish letters to Santa from the kiddies, with Dawkins' sneering comments.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | December 21, 2006 7:45 PM
I dunno. To me it read pretty much like a word-for-word Dawkins lecture with Santa substituted for God.
Damn funny, actually.
The parallels between the two myths are actually pretty deep, with the severe exception that those in charge of perpetrating the God myth never tell their "children" that it's a pile of pretend bullshit designed as a reward to encourage "good" behavior.
And so those "children" grow up to be deluded adults. A whole fucking lot of them, sadly.
Posted by: paul@be | December 21, 2006 8:01 PM
well when I read it, it was like I could hear him say it, must be thanks to all those interviews and lectures seen on youtube,
by the way PZ, does it happen often that all the "top five/most active" post on sciencblogs (somewhere on the right here (why am I telling you where to find that list?)) are from pharyngula?
nice posting!
Posted by: Time Magazine's Person of the Year | December 21, 2006 8:10 PM
Santa is real; he's a Gallifreyan Time Lord. His sleigh is a TARDIS. =p
Posted by: SmellyTerror | December 21, 2006 9:47 PM
"Darwinian evolution enables us to comprehend who we are and where we've come from."
"If you are the sort of person who is interested in the truth, perhaps you would consider asking yourself this question: how exactly does a single elderly man not only manufacture but also deliver in a single evening what would, by all forms of logic, account to be millions of toys?"
You'd say that to 5 year olds? Seriously? Pfff. There's a man who needs to learn how to write to his audience.
:p
Posted by: Bad Albert | December 21, 2006 9:49 PM
I liked it. Also liked this one further down on the list:
Bob Hope's Audition for the Role of Quint in Jaws: April 12, 1974 (The USS Indianapolis Monologue).
"So 11 hundred men went in the water, 316 men came out. They call that another typical day over at Liberace's house."
Posted by: Peter Barber | December 21, 2006 9:50 PM
GWW said:
Oh, don't you start! You'll only set Susan "He's makin' a list, and checkin' it twice" Williams off again - or PZ will post another rock video so atrocious that no-one knows if it's a parody. ;-)
Posted by: Steven | December 21, 2006 10:15 PM
Ahh this was written by Mike Jones and not actually Richard Dawkins. Just Mike writting what he thinks Dawkins might say.
I think Dawkins would just encourage the kids of think for themselves and examine the evidence.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | December 21, 2006 11:34 PM
Spurious monologues "in the voice of" famous people seems to be asking for problems with accurate quotage down the road. How about instead writing in one's own voice, under one's own name or pseudonym? To avoid contaminating the credibility of one of our great spokespersons.
Posted by: ThomasHobbes | December 22, 2006 2:00 AM
In other news, decrepitoldfool, Johnathan Swift suggests that Irish babies make a tasty snack.
Honestly, though: if you have such a problem with satire, much of the world's great comedy will be inaccessible to you. And that's a terrible way to live.
Posted by: ThomasHobbes | December 22, 2006 2:42 AM
To follow up for clarity:
Why do I judge that you would have a general problem with satire? Because (and I don't mean to insult your intelligence with this, just to make the point clear) satire usually involves distortions, exaggerations, over-the-top ideas, etc. Anyone who disagrees with the entity being attacked--and is not smart enough to realize the nature of the text, or is dishonest enough to ignore it--could then use that text to "bolster" their position.
Trying to avoid that misrepresentation by not using parody or satire would doom the technique to extinction, and for me that is a serious loss. I, for one, will not play down the level of the people I oppose ideologically (creationists, IDer's, take your pick) by worrying about what form their ignorance will take.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | December 22, 2006 6:52 AM
Maybe I didn't check the context carefully enough but this didn't appear to be satire. The author didn't seem to be opposed to Dawkins' message, and seemed to be trying to avoid the distortions, exaggerations, and over-the-top ideas that distinguish satire. It seemed like he was really trying to write in Dawkins' voice.
My concern was along the lines of fake quotes that dominionists are always tossing around from Thomas Jefferson or George Washington's "prayer diary", etc. It's a constant battle to clean up the distortions.
One truly satirical (and hilarious) portrayal of Dawkins that comes to mind is in South Park.
That IS how the religious right sees Dawkins but I think they're projecting just the teeniest little bit.
Posted by: Humboldt | December 22, 2006 7:05 AM
Mssg t Dwkns: h ds nt hv mnply n trth.
Kp wy frm my kds.
Tht gs fr ll f y.
N cmprms n ths wll b ccptd.
Posted by: Darwin Youth | December 22, 2006 7:06 AM
Join the Darwin Youth today!
Posted by: Paul | December 22, 2006 8:08 AM
No offence, but what part of "Short Imagined Monologues" didn't you get?
Posted by: Graculus | December 22, 2006 10:31 AM
Smelly Terror: You'd say that to 5 year olds? Seriously? Pfff. There's a man who needs to learn how to write to his audience.
Well, it assumes that they are an audience of average 5-year olds, not intelligent ones, so perhaps it was a bit simple. :-P
I especially liked the shark monologue.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | December 22, 2006 12:56 PM
That was very funny. And best of all, I can actually imagine Dawkins himself laughing at it. I've been impressed at how Dawkins posts material critical of him on his website...something I don't see the other side doing very much. Any fear that this might be misquoted seems irrational. Sure, it could happen, but what are we supposed to do, stop being witty or self-deprecating or...HONEST...just because some buttwipes might twist the meaning? That would just mean the terrorists had won.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | December 22, 2006 1:28 PM
I bet Humboldt will be circulating it around as Dawkins' own words, and before long it will be part of the winger-canon of distorted Dawkins.
It's not a huge deal, it just didn't strike me as particularly good satire because it wasn't outrageous enough. It sounded too "straight" for my taste.